1

GENDER AND PERCEIVED CHANCES OF PROMOTION OR WAGE INCREASE: THE ROLE OF

FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS AND WORK-FAMILY CONFLICT

Clotilde Coron, Maîtresse de conférences, IAE Paris – Sorbonne Business School,

coron.iae@univ-paris1.fr

Emmanuelle Garbe, Maîtresse de conférences, IAE Paris – Sorbonne Business School,

garbe.iae@univ-paris1.fr

Abstract: The literature on the perceived chances of promotion or wage increase (PCPWI), in

relation to gender, is relatively scarce. Yet, PCPWI is an important element for employee

motivation and commitment. This article examines the relationship between gender and

PCPWI, in relation to work-life balance and flexible work arrangements (part-time work and

teleworking). It is based on the DARES REPONSE survey, which provides a representative

sample of French employees. Using multiple linear regression models with moderations, we

show that part-time work is associated with a lower PCPWI for women as for men. However,

part-time work or involvement in family life leading to a work-family conflict has a greater

negative effect on PCPWI for men than for women. Teleworking is associated with an increase

in PCPWI for women but not for men. Thus, this study gives some managerial

recommendations for companies that want to put in place flexible work arrangements and work-

family policies.

Keywords: gender, perceived chances of promotion, careers, work-life balance, moderating

effects, ideal-worker norm

Introduction

Many research on careers have documented the current movement of individualization of career

management characterized by a transfer in career management from organizations to employees

(Baruch, 2004). Employees have been asked to become responsible for their career

development and can, in counterparts, make career choices in accordance with their

expectations and values (Herrbach & Mignonac, 2012). While some wish to achieve high levels

of responsibility and wages, others can choose to prioritize their work-life balance (Arthur,

Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005). In that vein, flexible work arrangements have been put forward

by companies as allowing for more work-life balance and decreasing work-family conflict

2

(Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, 2012; Michel, Kotrba, Mitchelson, Clark, & Baltes,

2011). However, while the individualization of career management open new career

perspectives, it is confronted with the ideal worker norm, which refers to the idea that

committed workers are only those who are highly available for work, and who put work before

other areas of their life (Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, 2012). This raises the issue of the

compatibility between « building up a career » and opting for work arrangements that allow for

a better work-life balance.

Some research has shown that workers who have responsibilities outside work are

disadvantaged, especially those who use flexible work practices such as part-time work

(Rapoport, Bailyn, Fletcher, & Pruitt, 2002). Besides, previous research has shown that this

ideal worker norm is gendered: it corresponds generally to a masculine worker, due to the

gender role norms which assign the family domain more to women than to men (Gaunt &

Benjamin, 2007; Ruiz Castro, 2012).

This article deals with the relationship between perceived chances of promotion or wage

increase (PCPWI), flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict, in relationship with

gender1. The link between both is not obvious. Indeed, women are overrepresented among part-

time workers (Mourlot & Yildiz, 2020), and suffer more from work-family conflict, and this

sex difference explains part of the career differential between women and men. However, due

to the ideal worker and the gender role norms, men’s careers can suffer more from taking

flexible work arrangements and to be involved in the family domain.

To explore this question, this study uses the nationally representative 2017 French REPONSE

survey and generalized linear multiple models with moderating effects. The first section

examines previous findings and arguments with respect to careers and gender, which inform

this study’s hypotheses. The research methods and empirical results are then introduced in the

succeeding sections. The final sections provide further discussion and conclusions. The main

results of this article are that part-time work is associated with a lower PCPWI for both women

and men. However, part-time work or involvement in family life leading to a work-family

conflict has a greater negative effect on PCPWI for men than for women. Finally, teleworking

is associated with an increase in PCPWI for women but not for men.

I. Literature review and hypotheses

I.1. The individualization of career management and the ideal worker norm

The literature has largely documented the impact of the increased pace of economic changes on

careers. Career studies argue that these changes have a direct impact on career management.

Moving from a “work is primary” model to the “we are self-employed” model (Shapiro, Ingols,

& Blake-Beard, 2008), career management has, therefore, been reported from organizations to

employees. Employees have become active agents who, responsible for their employability,

1 Throughout the article, we will use “gender” to refer to the social gender-related phenomena, and “sex”

to refer to the statistical variable.

3

have to initiate improvement in their work situations and career outcomes (Fugate, Kinicki, &

Ashforth, 2004).

This individualization of career management is presented as an interesting perspective for

employees. While becoming their own career agent (Baruch, 2004), they can orient their

professional evolution regarding their personal and subjective considerations (Herrbach &

Mignonac, 2012). Objective criteria such as level of responsibilities or wages are not considered

as the main career success criteria anymore. While some can build up their career pursuing

objective goals such as wage increase or status, others can make alternative career choices

giving priority to subjective criteria such as work-life balance (Arthur et al., 2005). Further, by

extending careers beyond organizational boundaries, the individualization of career

management has legitimated new kind of careers, hitherto discredited, characterized by periods

of interruption (Shapiro et al., 2008) and where employment is considered as a temporary state

(Arthur & Rousseau, 1996).

Women are usually presented as the main recipients of these changes. Hence, while women

have traditionally faced difficulties in succeeding in both career and family spheres at the same

time (Shapiro et al., 2008; Wynn, 2017), the individualization of career management has freed

women from hegemonic objective career success criteria and allow them to reach instead

subjective career goals. While becoming their own career agent, women can, therefore, take

their distance from demanding full-time careers characterized by nonstop employment and

carve out space for the multiple demands coming from private life. As some scholars explain,

the individualization of career management has explicitly allowed women to conciliate both

professional and familial priorities in their career plan and to make career choices that reflect

more their personal values (Parker & Roan, 2014).

Although encouraging, this positive vision of contemporary careers set aside some critical

issues (Baruch & Vardi, 2015), especially regarding commitment. Despite the movement of

individualization of careers and career goal settings, commitment still remains synonymous of

face-time work in many organizations. As theorized by the signaling theory, employers tend

therefore to use only observable behaviors to make inferences about employees’ characteristics

that are harder to observe (Spence, 1973) and organizational commitment is part of these

characteristics (Leslie et al., 2012). Consequently, commitment is tightly intertwined with an

“ideal worker norm” that is “a standard dictating that employees show unwavering

organizational dedication” (Leslie et al., 2012, p. 1410). In that perspective, committed workers

are those who consider work as primary and time off for family as problematic (Fuegen,

Biernat, Haines, & Deaux, 2004; Leslie et al., 2012; Williams, 2000; Wynn, 2017). Hence,

while employees are supposed to run their career in line with their aspirations and values, they

remain constraints by organizational expectations regarding commitment.

I.2. Flexible work arrangements, a trap for women?

In a world where the motto for committed workers is “Working from home or part-time makes

it harder for your boss to know you. Do arrive early and stay late... make your commitment

visible by pulling long hours” (Yang, 2009, p. 65 in Leslie et al., 2012, p. 1407), anyone who

has responsibilities outside work is disadvantaged, especially those who use flexible work

practices such as part-time work (Rapoport et al., 2002). Hence, managers tend to perceived

employees’ keenness to use flexibility policy as a desire to accommodate their personal life at

the expense of their commitment (Leslie et al., 2012). The use of flexible work practices can

4

therefore result in lower performance evaluation by managers (Wharton, Chivers, & Blair-Loy,

2008) and penalties such as denial of pay raises, promotions or other career-related rewards

(McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003; Williams, 2000). The end result of this is the creation of dual-

track career path in organizations “whereby individuals focused on career advancement work a

standard schedule and are based primarily in the workplace, and individuals who work remotely

for reasons such as care responsibilities or health issues are not considered eligible for

leadership positions” (Beauregard, Basile, & Canonico, 2018, p. 19).

Women are usually the ones who opt for flexible work arrangements, which penalizes them in

their career (Shapiro et al., 2008). As they used arrangement such as flextime work, they are

perceived as deviant from the ideal worker model and, consequently, appear to demonstrate less

commitment to work than men (Duberley & Cohen, 2010). They benefit less from being stable

contributors to the organization than men (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005) and get less

training and development opportunities that would prepare them for high-level positions

(Russell & Eby, 1993). Further, women can get penalties such as denial of promotions or formal

mentoring relationships or get assignments that reduced their influence or access to

organizational resources (Shapiro et al., 2008). As a result, women can be trapped in career

paths reflected by lower promotion chances.

Mothers are particularly concerned by this mechanism. As long as they conform to prescriptive

motherhood stereotypes by working fewer hours and prioritizing family, they can “expect

penalization for violating ideal worker norms” (Wynn, 2017, p. 648).

At the same time, women are also constrained by another norm: the motherhood ideal norm.

Hence when trying to play the rules of the ideal worker norm, women can expect penalization

for violating motherhood stereotypes (Wynn, 2017). As a result, women are facing

“contradictory frames or injunctions that signify neither traditional feminine behavior nor

masculine behavior will be rewarded, and often these behaviors are penalized” (Shapiro et al.,

2008, p. 311).

Although men take less those flexible work arrangements and are less involved in their family

life than women, some of them are also concerned. Our general research proposal is that the

violation of the “ideal worker norm” has more negative consequences on men’s careers than on

women’s. Indeed, this violation is less frequent and therefore might be less accepted for men.

Furthermore, men who take flexible work arrangements and are involved in their family life

violate two social norms: the “ideal worker norm”, and the “gender role norm”, assuming that

men should take the breadwinner role and women should be responsible for household labor

and childcare (Bagger & Li, 2012; Zhao, Zhang, & Foley, 2019).

This paper focuses on the link between work-life balance and flexible work arrangements, and

perceived chances of promotion or wage increase (PCPWI) for women and men. There exist

several types of flexible work arrangements (Leslie et al., 2012), and this study focuses on part-

time work and teleworking: part-time work because it is very common among the female

population in France, and teleworking because it has spread widely due to the covid-crisis.

PCPWI has not been much studied in relation to sex or gender (Fox & Xiao, 2013; Wynn,

2017). Yet, while it is not, obviously, the same thing as actual chances of promotion, it is an

important object because it influences employees’ fairness perception (Foley, Kidder, &

Powell, 2002), commitment and job performance (Wynn, 2017), subjective career success

(Herrbach & Mignonac, 2012), and finally actual promotion chances (Fox & Xiao, 2013).

5

I.3. Hypotheses

Literature commonly acknowledges the negative relationship between part-time and promotion.

As many research showed, the number of working hours and the willingness to work overtime

are important criteria in promotion decisions (Booth, Francesconi, & Frank, 2003). In line with

the ideal worker norm, they suggest that promotion is largely based on the criteria of the number

of working hours which badly serve part-time workers. Part-time workers have therefore lower

chance to be promoted than other workers. For that reason, we assume that part-time decreases

the PCPWI for all employees (women and men).

Women are considered as the big losers of the promotion system. Most part-time workers are

women and 40% of the promotion gaps between men and women can be explained by sex

differences in contract hours, overtime hours and occasional late work (Deschacht, 2017).

Therefore, female employees usually consider their time constraints to be an important obstacle

to promotions (Nemoto, 2013). They consciously deviate from the ideal worker norm and are

consequently aware that this deviation will be penalized by a lower chance of promotion.

We assume than male part-time workers can expect penalties even more important than women

in terms of promotion or career advancement. Indeed, due to gender roles norms (Bagger & Li,

2012; Davis & Greenstein, 2009), men are usually considered to be the group that behave in

accordance with the ideal worker norm. Men are supposed to conform to the ideal worker norm

even more than women (who are traditionally seen as the deviant group). As a result, male part-

time workers can be considered as having unexpected deviant patterns, strongly violating ideal

career norms, and consequently can expect severe career penalties. We can then assume that

part-time decreases female PCPWI less than male’s.

H1: Part-time decreases both female and male employees’ PCPWI, but it decreases female

PCPWI less than male PCPWI.

The impact of teleworking on promotion is also well documented. Many research has argued

that, like all the flexible work arrangements that reduce visibility in the office, teleworking has

negative impact on promotion (Beauregard, 2011). Since organizations largely reward facetime

and presence in the workplace, people working from home suffer from not being visible enough.

They are routinely stigmatized (Munsch, Ridgeway, & Williams, 2014) and consequently less

considered for leadership positions.

As Beauregard et al. (2018) explain: “If employees are indeed being assessed on both the

amount and timing of their presence in the workplace, and are expected to be “extra” visible in

order to be considered ambitious and hardworking, then it is hardly surprising that those who

use telework arrangements are more likely than their office-based colleagues to report

experiencing both reduced visibility in the workplace and reduced career development” (p. 19).

Although facetime-focused culture remains very common within companies, some research

argues for a change in organizational culture regarding teleworking and teleworkers, especially

nowadays (Carillo, Cachat-Rosset, Marsan, Saba, & Klarsfeld, 2021; de Vries, Tummers, &

Bekkers, 2019; Nakrošienė, Bučiūnienė, & Goštautaitė, 2019). Some organizations with a

culture more accepting of flexible arrangement attribute employee requests for teleworking as

a way to remain committed to their organization while also balancing home responsibilities

(Leslie et al., 2012).

We can postulate that this change is particularly favorable to women. Indeed, teleworking

decreases the commuting time, and offers more flexibility in managing one’s schedule.

Teleworking is considered as a way for workers to maintain or even increase their ability to

6

work while addressing private demands. As a result, teleworking (like all the flexible working

arrangements that enable employees to vary the timing and location of the hours they work) is

often portrayed as a way to keep workers, and especially talented women, in the workforce

(Beauregard et al., 2018). Moreover, people who face work-family conflicts, and notably

women, can see teleworking as a way to avoid part-time work (Chung & van der Horst, 2018),

increase their work availability due to the reduction of commuting time (Nakrošienė et al.,

2019), and thus their career opportunities. On the contrary, and due to the ideal worker norm

and the facetime-focused culture, men can see teleworking as having negative consequences on

their career.

H2: Teleworking increases female PCPWI and decreases male PCPWI.

It has been shown that work-family conflict has a negative influence of career expectations and

perceived chances of career for women as for men (Martins, Eddleston, & Veiga, 2002).

Although previous literature has differentiated between work-to-family conflict and family-to-

work conflict (Bagger, Li, & Gutek, 2008; Michel et al., 2011; St-Onge, Renaud, Guérin, &

Caussignac, 2003), both refer to situations where work and family domains become somewhat

incompatible (Michel et al., 2011). In this study, we will use the broad concept of work-family

conflict. Previous research on work-family conflict has shown that sex is an antecedent of work-

family conflict. Due to gender roles norms, women are often more involved than men in the

family domain (Naschberger & Finstad-Milion, 2017), and thus face more often work-family

conflict. However, men who face work-family conflict are the ones who want to be involved in

their family lives. Previous research suggests that, more than sex, it is the importance granted

to family and to work which explains work-family conflict (Bagger et al., 2008) Hence, as for

the first hypothesis, we expect that work-family conflict will be associated with lower PCPWI

for women as for men, but with a stronger effect for men than for women.

H3: Work-family conflict decreases both female and male employees’ PCPWI, but it decreases

female PCPWI less than male PCPWI.

II. Methods

II.1. Sample and data

This study is based on data obtained from the French REPONSE Survey conducted by the

French Ministry of Labour in 2017. The REPONSE survey is a nationally representative survey

of French workplaces with 10 or more employees and was inspired by the British Survey

Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS). It is a stratified random sample with

weights so it is possible to extrapolate the results obtained in this study by using employee

weights. There are several employees respondents for each workplace.

The survey covers a wide range of topics. At an employee level, there are questions about the

individuals, their work, their working situation, and their feelings about their work.

The entire sample consisted of 28,724 employees. After deleting incomplete responses for the

main variables of interest, a sample of 23,387 respondents (10,164 females, 13,223 males) was

obtained (representing 5,662 companies).

7

II.2. Measures and variables

In this study, the dependent variable (perceived chances of promotion or wage increase -

PCPWI) is based on one question: “Do you think there is any chance of you being promoted or

being given a wage increase in the next 12 months?”. Respondents can rate it on a Likert scale

(1: “high chance”—4: “zero chance”). The usual estimation strategy used in this case is the

ordered probit or logit estimator (Wynn, 2017). Other research transforms the variable of

interest into a dichotomous one (Fox & Xiao, 2013). However, a traditional multiple linear

regression estimator can be used once the dependent variable has been transformed into a

“pseudo-continuous” variable, following Van Praag’s approach (Van Praag & Ferrer-i-

Carbonell, 2006). This probit OLS (POLS) approach is useful for at least two reasons. First, the

estimated coefficients can be interpreted as marginal effects (unlike ordered probit estimators).

Second, the computation time is considerably reduced compared to a ordered logit or probit

approach. This strategy has been used in several studies using ordered dependant variables

(Moullet & Salibekyan, 2019; Origo & Pagani, 2009) and is explained in detail in a technical

appendix provided by Origo and Pagani (2009). Hence, after inverting the order of the responses

(1: “zero chance”—4: “high chance”) to make the results more easily readable, we transformed

our variable into a pseudo-continuous variable following Van Praag’s approach (Van Praag &

Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2006). The choice to use only one question can be debated. However, this

decision corresponds to the choice made in some studies about perceived chances of promotion

(e.g., Fox & Xiao (2013); Wynn (2017)).

The study utilized three variables concerning work-life balance, corresponding to our three

hypotheses: part-time, teleworking, and work-family conflict. Part-time and teleworking are

dichotomous variables (“Yes” / “No”), with teleworking representing the fact to be able to work

from home regularly, i.e. one or several days a week. The work-family conflict corresponds to

the following question: “Does your work allow you to organize your private life satisfactorily”,

and respondents have four possibilities of answer: “Always”, “Often”, “Sometimes”, “Never”.

Thus, a “Always” answer corresponds to the absence of work-family conflict, whereas a

“Never” answer corresponds to strong work-family conflict.

The study also utilized variables that influence PCPWI following previous research. Previous

research has shown that education is one of the determinants of career success and promotion

(Ng et al., 2005; Pfeifer, 2010). Educational attainment was divided into seven levels in

ascending order, which correspond to the French educational system: “No educational

qualifications” / “Brevet” / “CAP-BEP” / “Bac/high school diploma” / “Bac+2” / “Bac+3 or 4

(undergraduate)” / “>Bac+4 (graduate).” Age has been shown to influence PCPWI (Fox &

Xiao, 2013). In line with previous research, age was used as a continuous variable, but age

squared was added to the models (Fox & Xiao, 2013). Previous research also used workplace

tenure, and tenure squared (Wynn, 2017), as done in this study. Concerning the type of contract,

it has been shown that temporary workers consider that they have fewer opportunities of

promotion than permanent workers (Chambel & Castanheira, 2006). The type of contract

variable was divided into two categories (i.e., “Permanent contract” and “Temporary contract”).

Previous research has shown that occupational category and function can influence significantly

the promotion chances: for example, promotions are generally more frequent for white-collars

than blue-collars (Pfeifer, 2010). Occupation was divided into the six following categories:

“Specialized worker” / “Skilled worker” / “Employee” / “Technician” / “Engineer and

manager” / “Other.” Function corresponds to the five following categories: “Production” /

“Maintenance” / “Accounting & finance” / “R&D” / “Other.” Some previous research has

8

studied the discrimination against unions, notably concerning wages (Bourdieu & Breda, 2017).

Union membership corresponds to three categories (“Yes” / “No but I have been once” / “No

never”), as being a union representative (“Yes” / “No” / “Purposeless because the workplace

does not have employee representatives”). Previous research has shown that training is one of

the predictors of promotion (Ng et al., 2005). In the REPONSE survey, training is a

dichotomous variable (“Yes” / “No”) corresponding to the fact of having benefitted from a

training financed by the company in the last three years. The need for training could be

associated to a lack of skills and therefore to a lower level of PCPWI. In the REPONSE survey,

the need for training is a variable with three categories (“Yes” / “No” / “I don’t know”)

corresponding to the fact of thinking that one needs an additional training. Finally, we also

controlled for the fact to have been promoted recently. Promotion is a dichotomous variable

(“Yes” / “No”) corresponding to the fact of having been promoted in the last three years.

The full list of variables is presented in Table 1, together with some descriptive statistics.

Table 1 around here

II.3. Methods

Four linear regression models were estimated with PCPWI as the dependent variable. In all four

models, a fixed-effect for the workplace was added in order to control for the variations of

promotion and wage increases policies within companies. The first model (Model 1) includes

sex, part-time work, teleworking, ability to conciliate work and personal life (i.e. absence of

work-family conflict), education, age, workplace tenure, type of contract, occupational

category, function, union membership, union representative, training, need for training, and

promotion. The second model (Model 2) includes all those exogenous variables and takes into

account the moderating effect of sex (Orser & Leck, 2010). Hence, the following moderators

were included: sex x part-time, sex x teleworking, and sex x amiability to conciliate work and

personal life. As all of these variables are categorical, significant interaction effects were

visualized through plots that show the group means for each joint level of the regressors

(Figures 1 and 2). Two additional models were estimated in order to gain a deeper

understanding of these relationships, one exclusively for the female population (Model 3) and

one for the male population (Model 4). This follows for example Huang and Gamble’s (2015)

research design. SAS software was used for all analyses.

III. Main results

An ANOVA test indicates that there is a significant difference of PCPWI between women and

men: overall, women report a lower PCPWI than men (m=-0.12, against 0.09 for women).

Table 2 shows the average PCPWI for the men and women separately and for the sample as a

whole, according to different characteristics, and indicates whether the differences in job

satisfaction according to each modality of the categorical variable are significant for each

sample (i.e., whole sample, female sample, male sample).

9

Table 2 around here

The level of PCPWI decreases for part-time workers for both women and men. On the contrary,

teleworking is associated with a higher level of PCPWI, for both women and men. This could

be explained by the fact that teleworking is more frequent among white-collars jobs, where the

levels of PCPWI are higher. Indeed, a cross-tabulation shows that 22.19% of the

engineers/managers (occupational category where the PCPWI is the highest) telework, against

4.65% of specialized workers (occupational category where the PCPWI is the lowest). Hence,

this descriptive result will be examined further through a regression analysis to control for the

work situation. The level of PCPWI decreases with work-family conflict, for both women and

men. Those results indicate that the effects of the work-life balance variables go in the same

sense for women and men. However, a deeper analysis with interaction effects is needed to

estimate more precisely the degree of variation of those effects.

Concerning the other variables, the level of PCPWI increases with education for both women

and men. This could be attributed to the fact that higher levels of education are linked to jobs

where the possibility to have a career progression and a salary increase are higher. Indeed, the

highest levels of PCPWI for both women and men are found for the occupational category

“Engineer/Manager”. Union membership tends to decrease the level of PCPWI, which could

be due to the internalization of a potential discrimination towards union members. Training and

promotion are associated with higher levels of PCPWI for both women and men. Concerning

training, it could be due to the fact that training represents an investment made by the company

to enable an employee to upgrade his or skills, which may effectively lead to opportunities for

promotion or wage increases. Concerning promotion, this could be due to the fact that people

who already haven promoted in the last three years are more likely to work in occupations

associated with frequent opportunities for promotion. The effect of the fact to need additional

training is significant only women. Surprisingly, women who report needing an additional

training declare a higher level of PCPWI than women who think they do not need an additional

training. This could be explained by the fact that some positions or occupations are associated

with both perceptions of needing additional skills and higher PCPWI. This descriptive result

needs to be examined further through a regression analysis to control for the work situation.

Table 3 reports the results of the models.

Table 3 around here

Model 1 was applied to the whole sample and did not include moderators. In this model, women

report lower PCPWI than men, as is the case in Model 2 which includes moderators.

In all four models, people working part-time report a lower PCPWI than those working full-

time. This is the case for both women (Model 3) and men (Model 4). However, the negative

effect of part-time work is more important for men than women. A closer look at the moderator

Sex x Working time (Figure 1) shows that females and males working part-time report a similar

level of PCPWI, whereas males working full-time report a much higher level of PCPWI than

female working full-time. Therefore, hypothesis H1 is supported.

10

Figure 1 around here

In Models 1, 2, and 3, teleworking does not influence significantly PCPWI. Besides, the

moderator Sex x Teleworking is not significant (Model 2). This would imply that hypothesis

H2 is not supported. However, in Model 3, which concerns only women, teleworking is

associated with a higher level of PCPWI, which supports hypothesis 2. Therefore, hypothesis

H2 is partially supported: teleworking increases female PCPWI but has no influence on male

PCPWI.

In all four models, work-family conflict is associated with lower degrees of PCPWI, for women

as for men. However, there is no significant difference among women between the ones who

report to be “always” able to conciliate their work and private life, and the ones who report to

be “often” able to conciliate both. A closer look at the moderator Sex x Ability to conciliate

(Figure 2) shows that male who report that their work “never” allows them to organize their

private life satisfactorily report a much lower PCPWI than other males, whereas the differences

among women depending on the work-family conflict is not that important. Therefore, work-

family conflict has a stronger negative influence on men’s PCPWI than on women’s, and

hypothesis H3 is supported.

Figure 2 around here

Concerning the other variables, some differences of determinants between women and men

should be noted. For example, having a high degree of education does not increase female

PCPWI whereas having an undergraduate diploma increases PCPWI for men. Having a

temporary contract increases female PCPWI but has no influence on male PCPWI. Being a

member of a union decreases male PCPWI but has no influence on female PCWI. Being a union

representative decreases female PCPWI but increases male PCPWI. Finally, reporting to need

additional training is associated with lower PCPWI, which is more intuitive than the

counterintuitive result obtained with the descriptive statistics.

IV. Discussion

This study dealt with the relationship between sex, flexible work arrangements and work-family

conflict, and PCPWI. First, it shows that there is a difference among flexible work arrangements

between part-time work and teleworking: part-time work is associated with lower levels of

PCPWI, whereas it is not the case for teleworking. Thus, while previous research has generally

examined flexible work arrangements as a whole (Leslie et al., 2012), it indicates that a more

precise approach is needed. Second, it shows sex differences. Notably, the negative influence

of part-time work on PCPWI is lower for women than for men. More precisely, while women

report a lower PCPWI than men, females and males working part-time report a similar level of

PCPWI, and males working full-time report a much higher level of PCPWI than female working

full-time. Besides, teleworking increases women’s PCPWI but has no influence on men’s

PCPWI. This can be due to the fact that teleworking allows individuals to conciliate more easily

their family and work duties, and can specifically allow women to avoid part-time work and

stay committed to their work (Chung & van der Horst, 2018; Nakrošienė et al., 2019). Work-

11

family conflict influences negatively PCPWI for women as for men, but the negative effects

are stronger for men than for women. Those results open two major avenues of discussion.

First, they can be put in relation to the literature on social norms, notably social norms

concerning work and gender. The ideal worker norm, which values highly available workers

who put their work before other areas of their lives, explains the negative effects of part-time

work on PCPWI. Indeed, this norm grants much importance to presenteeism (Beauregard et al.,

2018). This ideal worker norm is connected with the gender roles norm, which assumes that

men should take the breadwinner role and women should be responsible for household labor

and childcare (Bagger & Li, 2012; Gaunt & Benjamin, 2007). Therefore, women who take

flexible work arrangements and grant importance to their family deviate from the ideal worker

norm but comply with the gender roles norm, whereas men in the same situation deviate from

both the ideal worker norm and the gender roles norm. Therefore, the stigma encountered by

men who value their family or personal life and take flexible arrangements is stronger than for

women, and consequently the effects of this deviation is expected to be stronger (Elster, 1989;

McAdams, 1997). This could explain why the negative effect of part-time work and work-

family conflict is stronger for men than for women.

Second, those results highlight that women have largely assimilated that the gender roles norm

and the ideal worker norm may contribute to reducing their career outcomes. While some

research suggests that the individualization of career management offers to women the

possibility to develop their career successfully (Parker & Roan, 2014; Shapiro et al., 2008), it

is our contention that, first, women may still be confronted with many obstacles in their career

development and second, that because of these difficulties they still have lower career

expectations than men. Since they become their own career agent, women have to rely on

individual features such as human capital or social capital acquisition to develop their career

(Metz & Tharenou, 2001; Tharenou, 2001). But, because of their deviation from the ideal

worker norm, women get fewer opportunities than men to develop their human and social

capital (Duberley & Cohen, 2010). For instance, women are often excluded from influential

networks (Metz & Tharenou, 2001) which decrease their opportunity to develop relationships

that provide support for promotions. In accordance with Duberley and Cohen (2010), this paper

supports therefore the idea that when the onus is on employees to acquire the capital to develop

their career, women still get fewer opportunities for promotion than men and therefore

anticipate a lower PCPWI than men.

Finally, by showing the persistence of the ideal worker norm within many companies and its

impact on women PCPWI, this paper puts into question the psychological contract that

exchange promotion and pay raise for organizational commitment. Whilst much of the career

literature seems to see the psychological contract as gender neutral, or at least does not explicitly

deal with gender issues, this article highlights that men and women experience differently this

contract and that psychological contract may foster men’s career while being an impediment

for women.

Conclusion and implications

This work has theoretical and empirical contributions, but also limitations.

12

From a theoretical stance, this paper shows that despite the individualization of career

management, women remain confronted to the ideal worker norm and therefore to reduced

chances to be promoted or get a wage increase. Further, it shows that these inequalities between

women and men have been assimilated by workers, especially women, who consequently

expect fewer career outcomes than men.

From an empirical point of view, this paper uses a representative sample of the French workers’

populations, which offers strong opportunities to generalize the results, contrary to a lot of

studies on this topic.

From a managerial perspective, this study shows the importance of the distinction between

various types of flexible work arrangements, notably part-time work and teleworking. It also

shows that the stigma surrounding men’s involvement in their personal and family lives remains

important and calls for company policies aiming at its reduction.

This study also has limitations. First, causal relationships cannot be demonstrated because the

data are cross-sectional. Future research could use longitudinal design studies to show causality.

In addition, all variables were self-reported in the same questionnaire; thus, there is a chance of

common method bias. A final limitation is the use of a single item to measure PCPWI.

References

Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless

career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177‑202.

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The Boundaryless Career : A New Employment

Principle for a New Organizational Era. Oxford University Press.

Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2012). Being important matters : The impact of work and family

centralities on the family-to-work conflict–satisfaction relationship. Human Relations,

65(4), 473‑500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711430557

Bagger, J., Li, A., & Gutek, B. A. (2008). How much do you value your family and does it

matter? The joint effects of family identity salience, family-interference-with-work, and

gender. Human Relations, 61(2), 187‑211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707087784

Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers : From linear to multidirectional career paths.

Organizational and individual perspectives. Career Development International, 9(1),

58‑73.

Baruch, Y., & Vardi, Y. (2015). A Fresh Look at the Dark Side of Contemporary Careers :

Toward a Realistic Discourse. British Journal of Management, 1‑18.

Beauregard, T. A. (2011). Corporate Work-Life Balance Initiatives : Use and Effectiveness. In

S. Kaiser, M. J. Ringlstetter, D. R. Eikhof, & M. Pina e Cunha (Éds.), Creating

Balance ? International Perspectives on the Work-Life Integration of Professionals (p.

193‑208). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16199-5_11

Beauregard, T. A., Basile, K. A., & Canonico, E. (2018). “The fur-lined rut” : Telework and

career ambition. In C. Kelliher & J. Richardson (Éds.), Work, Working and Work

Relationships in a Changing World (p. 17‑36). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Consulté à

l’adresse https://www.routledge.com/Work-Working-and-Work-Relationships-in-a-

Changing-World-1st-Edition/Kelliher-Richardson/p/book/9780815371533

13

Booth, A. L., Francesconi, M., & Frank, J. (2003). A sticky floors model of promotion, pay,

and gender. European Economic Review, 47(2), 295‑322.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00197-0

Bourdieu, J., & Breda, T. (2017). Under-Paid Shop Stewards : A Case of Strategic

Discrimination?. An Econometric Analysis Using 2010 REPONSE Data. Travail et

Emploi, (Hors-série), 5‑30. https://doi.org/10.4000/travailemploi.7613

Carillo, K., Cachat-Rosset, G., Marsan, J., Saba, T., & Klarsfeld, A. (2021). Adjusting to

epidemic-induced telework : Empirical insights from teleworkers in France. European

Journal of Information Systems, 30(1), 69‑88.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1829512

Chambel, M. J., & Castanheira, F. (2006). Different Temporary Work Status, Different

Behaviors in Organization. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(3), 351‑367.

Chung, H., & van der Horst, M. (2018). Women’s employment patterns after childbirth and the

perceived access to and use of flexitime and teleworking. Human Relations, 71(1),

47‑72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717713828

Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender Ideology : Components, Predictors, and

Consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87‑105.

Deschacht, N. (2017). Part-Time Work and Women’s Careers : A Decomposition of the Gender

Promotion Gap. Journal of Labor Research, 38(2), 169‑186.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-017-9242-y

de Vries, H., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2019). The Benefits of Teleworking in the Public

Sector : Reality or Rhetoric? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4),

570‑593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18760124

Duberley, J., & Cohen, L. (2010). Gendering career capital : An investigation of scientific

careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 187‑197.

Elster, J. (1989). Social Norms and Economic Theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(4),

99‑117.

Foley, S., Kidder, D. L., & Powell, G. N. (2002). The Perceived Glass Ceiling and Justice

Perceptions : An Investigation of Hispanic Law Associates. Journal of Management,

28(4), 471‑496. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800401

Fox, M., & Xiao, W. (2013). Perceived Chances for Promotion Among Women Associate

Professors in Computing : Individual, Departmental, and Entrepreneurial Factors. The

Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 135‑152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-

9250-2

Fuegen, K., Biernat, M., Haines, E., & Deaux, K. (2004). Mothers and Fathers in the

Workplace : How Gender and Parental Status Influence Judgments of Job-Related

Competence. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 737‑754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-

4537.2004.00383.x

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability : A psycho-social construct,

its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 14‑38.

Gaunt, R., & Benjamin, O. (2007). Job insecurity, stress and gender : The moderating role of

gender ideology. Community, Work & Family, 10(3), 341‑355.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800701456336

14

Herrbach, O., & Mignonac, K. (2012). Perceived Gender Discrimination and Women’s

Subjective Career Success : The Moderating Role of Career Anchors. Relations

industrielles, 67(1), 25‑50. https://doi.org/10.7202/1008194ar

Huang, Q., & Gamble, J. (2015). Social expectations, gender and job satisfaction : Front-line

employees in China’s retail sector. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(3),

331‑347. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12066

Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T.-Y., & Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible work practices :

A source of career premiums or penalties? The Academy of Management Journal, 55(6),

1407‑1428.

Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the Relationship Between

Work-Family Conflict and Career Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal,

45(2), 399‑409. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069354

McAdams, R. H. (1997). The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms. Michigan Law

Review, 96(2), 338‑433. https://doi.org/10.2307/1290070

McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. (2003). Does « Out of Sight » Mean « Out of Mind »? An

Empirical Investigation of the Career Advancement Prospects of Telecommuters.

Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 16(2), 19‑34.

https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2003040102

Metz, I., & Tharenou, P. (2001). Women’s Career Advancement : The Relative Contribution of

Human and Social Capital. Group & Organization Management, 26(3), 312‑342.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601101263005

Michel, J. S., Kotrba, L. M., Mitchelson, J. K., Clark, M. A., & Baltes, B. B. (2011).

Antecedents of work–family conflict : A meta-analytic review. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 689‑725. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.695

Moullet, S., & Salibekyan, Z. (2019). Le sentiment d’insécurité de l’emploi en France : Entre

déterminants individuels et pratiques managériales. Economie et statistique, (507‑508),

71‑90. https://doi.org/10.24187/ecostat.2019.507d.1978

Mourlot, L., & Yildiz, H. (2020). Quelles sont les conditions d’emploi des salariés à temps

partiel (DARES Analyses No 025; p. 1‑14). Paris: DARES.

Munsch, C. L., Ridgeway, C. L., & Williams, J. C. (2014). Pluralistic Ignorance and the

Flexibility Bias : Understanding and Mitigating Flextime and Flexplace Bias at Work.

Work and Occupations, 41(1), 40‑62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413515894

Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I., & Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from home : Characteristics

and outcomes of telework. International Journal of Manpower, 40(1), 87‑101.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJM-07-2017-0172

Naschberger, C., & Finstad-Milion, K. (2017). How French managers picture their careers : A

gendered perspective. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,

36(5), 401‑416. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-10-2016-0082

Nemoto, K. (2013). Long Working Hours and the Corporate Gender Divide in Japan. Gender,

Work & Organization, 20(5), 512‑527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

0432.2012.00599.x

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of Objective

and Subjective Career Success : A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2),

367‑408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x

15

Origo, F., & Pagani, L. (2009). Flexicurity and job satisfaction in Europe : The importance of

perceived and actual job stability for well-being at work. Labour Economics, 16(5),

547‑555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2009.02.003

Orser, B., & Leck, J. (2010). Gender influences on career success outcomes. Gender in

Management: An International Journal, 25(5), 386‑407.

https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411011056877

Parker, P., & Roan, A. (2014). Organisational perpectives on women’s careers. In J. Bimrose,

M. McMahon, & M. Watson (Éds.), Women’s Career Development Throughout the

Lifespan : An international exploration. Routledge.

Pfeifer, C. (2010). Determinants of Promotions in an Internal Labour Market. Schmalenbach

Business Review (sbr), 62, 342‑358. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396810

Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J. K., & Pruitt, B. H. (2002). Beyond Work–Family Balance :

Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley

& Sons.

Ruiz Castro, M. (2012). Time Demands and Gender Roles : The Case of a Big Four Firm in

Mexico. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(5), 532‑554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

0432.2012.00606.x

Russell, J. E. A., & Eby, L. T. (1993). Career Assessment Strategies for Women in

Management. Journal of Career Assessment, 1(3), 267‑293.

https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279300100306

Shapiro, M., Ingols, C., & Blake-Beard, S. (2008). Confronting Career Double Binds :

Implications for Women, Organizations, and Career Practitioners. Journal of Career

Development, 34(3), 309‑333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845307311250

Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355‑374.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-214850-7.50025-5

St-Onge, S., Renaud, S., Guérin, G., & Caussignac, É. (2003). Vérification d’un modèle

structurel à l’égard du conflit travail-famille. Relations industrielles, 57(3), 491‑516.

https://doi.org/10.7202/006887ar

Tharenou, P. (2001). Going Up? Do Traits and Informal Social Processes Predict Advancing in

Management? Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1005‑1017.

https://doi.org/10.5465/3069444

Van Praag, B. M. S., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2006). An almost integration : Free approach

to ordered response models (Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No 06-047/3; p.

1‑32). Amsterdam and Rotterdam: Tinbergen Institute.

Wharton, A. S., Chivers, S., & Blair-Loy, M. (2008). Use of Formal and Informal Work–Family

Policies on the Digital Assembly Line. Work and Occupations, 35(3), 327‑350.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888408316393

Williams, J. (2000). Unbending Gender : Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do

About It (Oxford University Press). UK.

Wynn, A. T. (2017). Gender, Parenthood, and Perceived Chances of Promotion. Sociological

Perspectives, 60(4), 645‑664.

Yang, J. L. (2009). Love your job ? Then save it! Fortune, 159(2), 64‑65.

16

Zhao, K., Zhang, M., & Foley, S. (2019). Testing two mechanisms linking work-to-family

conflict to individual consequences : Do gender and gender role orientation make a

difference? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(6),

988‑1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1282534

17

Tables

Table 1. Main variables and descriptive statistics of the REPONSE 2017 sample

Whole sample Female Male

Number of observations 23,387 10,164 13,223

Perceived promotion

probability

m=0.0, sd=16.64 m=-0.12, sd=15.75 m=0.09, sd=17.10

Work-life balance

variables

Working time

Full-time

Part-time

86.33

13.67

73.95

26.05

95.15

4.85

Teleworking

No

Yes

90.07

9.93

91.41

8.59

89.13

10.87

Ability to conciliate

Always

Often

Sometimes

Never

18.04

48.42

27.75

5.80

19.31

49.07

26.07

5.55

17.13

47.95

28.95

5.97

Other variables

Education

No ed. qualification

Brevet

CAP-BEP

Bac (High school)

Bac+2

Bac+3 or 4 (undergrad.)

>Bac+4 (graduate)

6.93

5.24

22.51

19.16

18.01

12.16

16.00

5.35

5.70

17.44

20.96

19.14

15.99

15.42

8.05

4.92

26.12

17.87

17.20

9.43

16.42

Age m=41.30,

sd=196.64

m=41.02,

sd=193.29

m=41.49,

sd=199.10

Workplace tenure m=13.42,

sd=184.24

m=12.93,

sd=176.82

m=13.77,

sd=189.49

Type of contract

Permanent

Temporary

94.56

5.44

93.99

6.01

94.97

5.03

Occupational category

Specialized worker

Skilled worker

Employee

Technician

Engineer/Manager

Other

12.48

14.61

19.29

18.09

25.13

10.41

8.48

5.93

34.61

15.90

20.62

14.47

15.30

20.70

8.52

19.62

28.29

7.56

Function

Production

Maintenance

Accounting/Finance

R&D

Other

27.20

9.27

8.72

8.77

46.04

14.23

1.55

13.69

6.15

64.38

36.28

14.68

5.24

10.61

33.19

Union membership

18

No never

No but I have been once

Yes

80.26

7.79

11.95

82.58

7.08

10.34

78.61

8.30

13.09

Union representative

No

Yes

Purposeless

90.35

6.65

3.00

90.89

5.95

3.16

89.98

7.14

2.88

Training

No

Yes

52.49

47.51

55.57

44.43

50.29

49.71

Training needed

No

I don’t know

Yes

51.39

4.95

43.67

50.37

5.38

44.25

52.11

4.65

43.25

Promotion

No

Yes

71.64

28.36

75.06

24.94

69.19

30.81

19

Table 2. Average PCPWI by sex and main characteristics

Whole sample Female Male

Work-life balance

variables

Working time *** *** ***

Full-time

Part-time

0.05

-0.30

-0.05

-0.32

0.10

-0.23

Teleworking *** *** ***

No

Yes

-0.02

0.21

-0.14

0.11

0.07

0.27

Ability to conciliate *** *** ***

Always

Often

Sometimes

Never

0.12

0.08

-0.13

-0.41

-0.05

-0.04

-0.25

-0.52

0.26

0.17

-0.06

-0.34

Other variables

Education *** *** ***

No ed. qualification

Brevet

CAP-BEP

Bac (High school)

Bac+2

Bac+3 or 4 (undergrad.)

>Bac+4 (graduate)

-0.28

-0.28

-0.17

-0.07

0.04

0.14

0.39

-0.42

-0.41

-0.32

-0.23

-0.08

-0.01

0.27

-0.22

-0.17

-0.10

0.05

0.13

0.31

0.47

Age *** *** ***

Workplace tenure *** *** ***

Type of contract

Permanent

Temporary

0.00

-0.02

-0.12

-0.12

0.09

0.06

Occupational category *** *** ***

Specialized worker

Skilled worker

Employee

Technician

Engineer/Manager

Other

-0.25

-0.06

-0.18

0.08

0.36

-0.23

-0.42

-0.26

-0.21

-0.02

0.27

-0.31

-0.19

-0.02

-0.07

0.13

0.41

-0.13

Function *** *** ***

Production

Maintenance

Accounting/Finance

R&D

Other

-0.02

0.05

0.11

0.31

-0.07

-0.23

-0.23

0.02

0.19

-0.15

0.03

0.08

0.29

0.35

0.04

Union membership *** *** ***

No never

No but I have been once

Yes

0.03

-0.17

-0.12

-0.10

-0.29

-0.19

0.13

-0.09

-0.09

Union representative *** * **

No

Yes

Purposeless

0.01

-0.08

-0.06

-0.11

-0.21

-0.20

0.10

-0.00

0.05

20

Training *** *** ***

No

Yes

-0.16

0.18

-0.26

0.05

-0.09

0.27

Training needed ** **

No

I don’t know

Yes

-0.00

-0.08

0.01

-0.13

-0.23

-0.11

0.08

0.04

0.10

Promotion *** *** ***

No

Yes

-0.20

0.50

-0.30

0.41

-0.12

0.56

Significance levels: *=0.1; **=0.01; ***=0.001

21

Table 3. Models Model 1

(Whole sample) Model 2

(Whole sample) Model 3

(Female sample) Model 4

(Male sample)

Intercept 0.91* 0.91* 1.28 0.57

Sex (ref. Male)

Female

-0.08***

-0.09***

-

-

Work-life balance variables

Working time (ref. Full-time)

Part-time

-0.12***

-0.19***

-0.10***

-0.23***

Teleworking (ref. No)

Yes

-0.00

-0.02

0.07*

-0.03

Ability to conciliate (ref. Often)

Always

Sometimes

Never

0.08***

-0.18***

-0.39***

0.11***

-0.18***

-0.43***

0.02

-0.15***

-0.28***

0.12***

-0.18***

-0.40***

Moderation effects

Sex x Working time - * - -

Sex x Teleworking - ns - -

Sex x Ability to conciliate - * - -

Other variables

Education (ref. CAP-BEP)

No ed. qualification

Brevet

Bac (High school)

Bac+2

Bac+3 or 4 (undergrad.)

>Bac+4 (graduate)

-0.00

0.03

-0.02

0.01

0.06*

0.05*

-0.00

0.03

-0.02

0.01

0.06*

0.05*

-0.04

-0.04

-0.06*

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.08*

0.06

Age -0.00 -0.00 0.01 0.00

Age² -0.00* -0.00 -0.00 -0.00

Workplace tenure -0.01*** -0.01*** -0.01** -0.01***

Workplace tenure² 0.00* 0.00*** 0.00 0.00*

Type of contract (ref. Permanent)

Temporary

0.04

0.04

0.09*

0.08

Occupational category (ref.

Engineer/Manager)

Specialized worker

Skilled worker

Employee

Technician

Other

-0.34***

-0.24***

-0.25***

-0.14***

-0.24***

-0.34***

-0.24***

-0.24***

-0.14***

-0.23***

-0.32***

-0.15**

-0.24***

-0.12**

-0.23**

-0.37***

-0.27***

-0.26***

-0.16***

-0.23***

Function (ref. Other)

Production

Maintenance

Accounting/Finance

R&D

-0.01

-0.04

-0.01

-0.06*

-0.01

-0.04

-0.01

-0.06*

-0.10*

-0.02

-0.01

-0.05

0.03

-0.01

-0.01

-0.07*

Union membership (ref. No

never)

No but I have been once

Yes

-0.01

-0.08***

-0.01

-0.08***

-0.07

-0.03

-0.00

-0.11**

Union representative (ref. No)

Yes

Purposeless

0.04

0.02

0.04

0.02

-0.09*

0.01

0.08*

0.07

Training (ref. No)

Yes

0.13***

0.13***

0.10***

0.14***

Training needed (ref. No)

22

I don’t know

Yes

-0.08**

-0.05***

-0.08**

-0.05***

-0.08*

-0.05*

-0.09*

-0.05**

Promotion (ref. No)

Yes

0.42***

0.42***

0.42***

0.42***

R2

Adj. R2

0.50

0.32

0.50

0.32

0.61

0.30

0.57

0.31

Significance levels: *=0.1; **=0.01; ***=0.001

23

Figures

Figure 1. Sex x Working time

Figure 2. Sex x Ability to conciliate private life and work